Hutcherson in Hot Water in Latvia too?

Things are starting to get interesting in Latvia.  In reaction to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur article, there is a new piece written (in Latvian)by Kārlis Streips, an American-Latvian journalist and working in Riga. 

From what I've heard he's a famous TV journalist and probably the most well known gay man in Latvia.  You can find an English language version of the article at UKGAYNEWS.

There is also great background on Latvian politics and civil rights to be gleaned from Chicago born Latvian writer, translator and blogger Peteris Cedrins.  He's written about LGBT civil rights issues here and Hutcherson even rates a mention here.

Of largest concern is the emerging pattern of anti-gay religious groups joining forces to fight or turn back LGBT civil rights in the U.S., Latvia and Russia.  There have been some interesting articles in The Stranger talking about the phenomenon in California.  E and I drove through California last summer and were astounded at how many Russian speakers we encountered on our trip.

Say it isn't so... Julia Child homophobic?

In a recent article in Boston magazine, Laura Shapiro explores Julia's attitude to men in general and gay men in particular: 

Julia had changed much more than her name when she married in 1946: She changed her very identity, from an individual to half of a couple. She was Julia of Paul and Julia, fundamentally incomplete on her own, one piece of a two-part jigsaw puzzle. And once she became a wife, it was from that perspective that she viewed the world. People belonged in pairs, she felt—male and female together, marching through life as if they were streaming aboard the ark.

For this reason, she found homosexuality outlandish—not immoral, and certainly not to be criminalized, but a rude disruption in the natural order of things. Homophobia was a socially acceptable form of bigotry in midcentury America, and Julia and Paul participated without shame for many years. She often used the term pedal or pedalo—French slang for a homosexual—draping it with condescension, pity, and disapproval. “I had my hair permanented at E. Arden’s, using the same pedalo I had before (I wish all the men in OUR profession in the USA were not pedals!),” she wrote to Simca. Fashion designers were “that little bunch of Pansies,” a cooking school was “a nest of homovipers,” a Boston dinner party was “peopled by 3 fags in an expensive house…. We felt hopelessly square and left when decently possible,” and San Francisco was beautiful but full of pedals—“It appears that SF is their favorite city! I’m tired of them, talented though they are.”

It is worth reading the whole article since it covers Julia's inconsistancies and how her feeling evolved over time:

But by the 1980s, when the AIDS crisis began to unfold, the horror of what was happening to people she knew, and people she loved, dealt a significant blow to her longtime prejudice. 

“Last year my husband and I stood by helplessly while a dear and beloved friend went through months of slow and frightening agony,” she told a crowd at the Boston Garden in 1988 during an AIDS benefit sponsored by the American Institute of Wine and Food. “But what of those lonely ones? The ones with no friends or family to ease the slow pain of dying? Those are the people we’re concerned about this evening. And food is of very special importance here. Good food is also love.”

Approaching Easter each year it is customary to delve into Mastering the Art of French Cooking for courses on our Easter Dinner menu.  Julia has always been a favorite in our household and I don't see that changing.

Religion & Civil Rights

I have often wondered what is behind Hutcherson and other anti-civil rights religious activists opposition to anti-discrimination, hate crimes, marriage equality, adoption rights, medical and inheritance rights, and a litany of other legislation.

In their talking points they speak to the idea that they don't want sinful behavior as defined in their religious texts to be "tolerated". They don't want to be forced to accept what they interpret as sin to be both morally neutral and socially acceptable.

To state it more bluntly, religious groups want to preserve their right to discriminate against people based on their religious traditions and interpretations of holy texts. And here is the dilemma of a multi-religious civil society - when different religious traditions conflict on what is sin, and therefore what is illegal, where does that leave civil society and the rule of law?

Today one target of this overt discrimination are LGBT people who seek equal treatment, respect, and benefits before the law. Anti-gay religious people frame any expansion of anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation as "attacking religious freedom".

In the past the targets of discrimination have been African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, and various other Racial and Religious minorities. Happily, discrimination on religious and racial grounds, while not eradicated, is clearly rejected in the U.S. Constitution and made illegal by various federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The hateful anti-Miscegenation laws preventing marriage between racial groups are similarly and thankfully long gone.

Same-sex attracted people are explicitly unprotected in the U.S. constitution and legislation like the federal Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requiring that states recognize each others "acts, records, and judicial proceedings". From DOMA:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

DOMA allows states to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriages. The goal was to prevent recognition by a single state legalizing same-sex marriage in all states. Despite ensuring that recognition of same-sex marriage is a right for each state, there continue to be moves to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent same-sex couples from ever marrying.

Indeed, Defense of Marriage Acts and other restrictive laws passed at the state and local levels bear a striking resemblance to the Black Codes used to regulate and restrict the civil rights and liberties of African-Americans.

But can the ultimate goal of any religion be just to prevent "toleration" or is the aim to make their definition of sin into the new criminal code. A strict interpretation of the Christian bible would see adultery, eating shellfish, wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and touching leather as capital offences, and move to allow polygamy, keeping of slaves, and the statutory rape of minors.

Fair-minded people have to ask how such obviously unjust ideas might stand largely unchallenged in societies built on the idea that church and state are separate entities. There are many historical examples of Religious Law and the injustices and slaughter that have resulted from their adoption. Indeed, curbing the excesses of non-Christian theocracies has been one of the justifications the U.S. Government has used for engaging in military actions abroad.

By casting their opposition to evolving LGBT civil rights under the protective shadow of fictional "religious oppression", Christians hope to use their own federal and constitutional protections as a barrier to prevent LGBT people being equally protected.

Hutcherson maintains that Christians today are oppressed in the same way African Americans were through most of the 20th century. Here's an account of a speech by Hutcherson at a "Stand for the Family" rally in October 2006:

He recounted his personal experiences during segregation, and the obstacles to freedom that African Americans faced during an embarrassing chapter of American history. He said "I did not go through all that to become a Christian and do it all again." He said he's "fighting for the rights of Christians to be treated just like everybody else in the United States" and that to be a Christian today is to be "treated like a second class citizen."

That Christians are oppressed victims is a difficult case to make when Christians are a clear majority in the population (American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001):

• 79.8% - Christian
• 5.2% - Other religions
• 15% - No religion, atheist or agnostic

It's an especially hard argument to make when there is a White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives where Hutcherson claims he is a frequent visitor, and from who he has allegedly been granted "Special Envoy" status. Hardly the level of access and support that one would see for an allegedly oppressed group.

Now let's focus on Hutcherson's contention that Christians are as oppressed today as African-American people were through the 20th century.

In the early 20th century the white protestant Ku Klux Klan espoused the idea of "white supremacy" -- that people who are of white European descent are superior to other racial groups -- and expanded their targets to include not only black people, but Jews, Catholics, and other racial minorities.

Burning crosses were used to intimidate and drive their enemies away. If burning crosses failed, they resorted to murder often by lynching.

"Jim Crow" laws maintained prejudice and oppression of African Americans in both the North and South. From Wikipedia:

"The Jim Crow Laws were state and local laws enacted in the Southern and border states of the United States and enforced between 1876 and 1965. They mandated "separate but equal" status for African Americans. In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were almost always inferior to those provided to white Americans. Although it was required that the facilities provided were equal they were not. The Jim Crow period or the Jim Crow era refers to the time during which this practice occurred. The most important laws required that public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, have separate facilities for whites and blacks."

It is clear that African-Americans faced atrocious social conditions and injustice with segregated facilities, overt discrimination, and serious restrictions to their civil rights and freedoms.

Comparing the shameful treatment and arguably "second-class citizen" status accorded to minority African-Americans in the mid-twentieth century with today's powerful and overwhelming Christian majority leads to only one possible conclusion - Reverend Hutcherson's contention must be treated as pure hyperbole. In fact, it is so hyperbolic that one can't help but be astounded that an African-American pastor who lived through segregation in the south could make such a claim.

It requires little study of the civil rights struggles for African-Americans and LGBT people before you see that they have shared common reactions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government and from society and its institutions:

1. Resistance to any legislation or legal rulings mandating equality
2. Political manipulation of the issue for partisan advantage
3. Refusal to integrate with the armed services
4. Exposure of fault lines in religious communities
5. Creation of new "separate but equal" status to forestall true equality

What should we call the growing shroud of laws and rulings that maintain and expand the oppression of LGBT people?

It is impossible to be familiar with the African-American civil rights movement, with it's Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws of the past, and fail to see the connective tissue between it and the LGBT civil rights struggle and today's DOMAs, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and state and federal Constitutional Marriage Amendments.

Those opposing LGBT civil rights are more subtle and artful in their arguments, their language more oblique and neutral, more careful to avoid appearing extreme, but their goals are still easy to recognize.

These are the new Black Codes, the Jim Crow Laws for the 21st Century.

It remains a puzzlement to me that people of faith anywhere could support them.

UPDATE: In the wake of the California Supreme Court decision on Marriage Equality I was gratified to see this article from the FindLaw site by Vikram David Amar titled "The Response to California's Gay Marriage Ruling: How the Losing Side's Tactics Harken Back to the Fight Over Racial Equality" He points to the similarity in legal tactics between the anti-equality forces on racial and same-sex marriage issues.

Just in case the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction...

I was pleased to see the official complaint by Dave Coffman to the FBI regarding the claims that Reverend Hutcherson has been making about his alleged "Special Envoy" status. 

But after a number of conversations with people at the Department of State and the White House office of Presidential Appointments, it began to sound like the Office of Inspector General in the State Department might be the right people to investigate Reverend Hutcherson's claims and activities while in Latvia.

I'm not a lawyer, but I began to worry that the FBI may have limited jurisdiction to investigate matters occurring outside the United States. 

So...

Today I sent this to the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of State...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Individual claiming alleged "Special Envoy" status
To: oighotline@state.gov

Attention: Office of the Inspector General

I am deeply concerned about the claims and activities of Mr. Kenneth Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church and a resident of Redmond, Washington, while traveling in the European Union in the period from December 2006 through March 2007.  

Mr. Hutcherson claims he has an appointment as "Special Envoy for Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief" which allegedly comes from the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.  The White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives refutes Mr. Hutcherson's claim and there is no record of "Special Envoy" or any other status being given to him at either the Department of State or the Office of Presidential Appointments in the White House.

On a recent trip to Latvia (from approximately March 8th through 12th, 2007) Mr. Hutcherson presented himself to his hosts, the New Generation Church, and representatives of other religious denominations attending a conference, as representing the White House and the United States or America. When queried about Mr. Hutcherson's exact claims the technical staff at the New Generation Church released only a short audio recording, a transcript of which appears below:

"We are here to make sure that the United States is not being used to push any right that subdue (sic) other right (sic) and I have the power and the commission to ask these questions."

In an e-mail to his church (full e-mail below) dated March 16th, 2007 Mr. Hutcherson claimed:

"I was honored to receive a commission by the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives as a Special Envoy in the following areas: Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief, which allowed me to meet with the Latvian government."

In the same March 16^th 2007 e-mail he claims domestic as well as international jurisdiction for his alleged "Special Envoy" status:

"Continue to pray that the new influence that God has granted through me serving as a special envoy for the White House will be effectively used as I deal with the adoption issue in the United States this next week."

On the same trip Mr. Hutcherson met with staff at the U.S. Embassy in Latvia and may have made some similar claims of White House authority in discussions over U.S. Human Rights policy and the Embassy's diplomatic activities in Latvia. He may also have used his meeting with the U.S. Embassy in Latvia to bolster his claimed credentials as a "Special Envoy" with his host and the European media: 

"During my meeting with the American Embassy I expressed that many in the Latvian Parliament and many of the Latvian people believe that they in the American Embassy support the Homosexual agenda.  I talked to them about their funding of many Homosexual groups against the wishes of the majority of the Latvian people.

Pray that my discussions will produce a change of policy. That is what we are expecting when we receive the full report that I requested from the Embassy."

I am concerned that these representations by Mr. Hutcherson in the United States and while traveling abroad may be contrary to US law under 18 USC 912 and other applicable statutes.  A complaint has been lodged with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Seattle, Washington by Mr. Dave Coffman requesting an investigation of Mr. Hutcherson's claims of "Special Envoy" status here in the United States.

However, there is considerable evidence that Mr. Hutcherson claimed and acted with the status and authority of a "Special Envoy" and representative of the White House while traveling in Latvia which may fall outside the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI.

I request that the Office of the Inspector General immediately open an investigation into the claims and activities of Mr. Hutcherson during his travel in Latvia and the European Union with special attention on the period from December 2006 through March 2007.

I look forward to your prompt acknowledgement of this request and detailed information on the steps that the Office of the Inspector General will undertake regarding this serious and urgent matter.

<redacted>

 Enclosures:

· multiple e-mails from Mr. Hutcherson making direct claims and inferences of representing the White House and the United States of America here in the U.S. and while traveling in the European Union.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Hutcherson <hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org >
Date: Mar 16, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Prayer Warrior
To: hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org

---

March 16, 2007

Dear Prayer Warrior,

Thank you for praying for my call to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. It went very well.

I was honored to receive a commission by the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives as a Special Envoy in the following areas: Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief, which allowed me to meet with the Latvian government.

The purpose of the trip to Latvia was to support the Latvian government as they stand for Family Values and Religious Freedom in their country.
I met with all the Religious Leaders in Latvia except two.  I also met with the Ministers of Integration, Minister of the Interior, and the Minister of Human Rights and Parliament.

The successful result of the meeting was to foster complete agreement to work together in the future to strengthen family values.   All agreed to keep traditional values of marriage between a man and a woman and ensure that marriage remains an institution between a man and woman as well as ensure religious freedom within the country.

During my meeting with the American Embassy I expressed that many in the Latvian Parliament and many of the Latvian people believe that they in the American Embassy support the Homosexual agenda.  I talked to them about their funding of many Homosexual groups against the wishes of the majority of the Latvian people.

Pray that my discussions will produce a change of policy. That is what we are expecting when we receive the full report that I requested from the Embassy.

Continue to pray that the new influence that God has granted through me serving as a special envoy for the White House will be effectively used as I deal with the adoption issue in the United States this next week.

Your Pastor,
Hutch

---

15135 NE 92ND STREET SUITE 240 - REDMOND · WA 98052 | 425.556.5905 or 1.877.BLKnWHT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Hutcherson <hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org>
Date: Mar 12, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Prayer Warrior from Latvia
To: hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org

---

March 12, 2007
Dear Prayer Warrior,
I think I have been on every Latvian and European Union television since I've been here.   Thanks for your prayers. 
It went extermely well with American embassy...they aren't very happy right now, because I had to lay it out, they are not representing American values well.
It also went well with the Parliament, the Ministry of Interior, and Minister of Integration.
Please pray for me as I fly back tomorrow, and get in late afternoon.
Your Pastor, Hutch

---

15135 NE 92ND STREET SUITE 240 - REDMOND · WA 98052 | 425.556.5905 or 1.877.BLKnWHT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Hutcherson <hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org>
Date: Mar 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Subject: Hutch in Latvia Day 1
To: hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org

---

March 9, 2007
Dear Prayer Warrior,
Praise for 4 extraordinary meetings today!  God is doing incredible things through me in Latvia!
Pray:

• Everyone received their luggage but me. They need to find my luggage and return it to me!

• I will be having a difficult meeting with Ambassador...I just found out that our Embassy in Latvia has been supporting gay groups monetarily to come into this country.

• Continue to pray for strength and stamina.

Your Pastor, Hutch

---

15135 NE 92ND STREET SUITE 240 - REDMOND · WA 98052 | 425.556.5905 or 1.877.BLKnWHT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Hutcherson <hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org>
Date: Mar 8, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Prayer Warrior
To: hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org

---

March 8, 2007
Dear Prayer Warrior,
Thank you so much for praying for me last night with my interview with Alan Colmes.  God allowed me to make my points clearly. 
Please pray for me as I fly out today for Latvia. I received a letter yesterday from the President explaining her position on religious freedom.  I will be meeting with the Prime Minister, with the Secretary of Transportation, with the Latvian Legislature, and relgious leaders of Latvia while I am there.
It is very important that we have great meetings and understanding and I covet your prayers. I'll be flying back Tuesday, so please pray for safe travel and successful meetings for God's honor.
Pastor Hutch

---

15135 NE 92ND STREET SUITE 240 - REDMOND · WA 98052 | 425.556.5905 or 1.877.BLKnWHT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Hutcherson <hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org>
Date: Mar 16, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Prayer Warrior
To: hutch@newsletter.abchurch.org

---

March 16, 2007
Pray for me as I talk with Jay Hines, Director of Faith Based Community Initiative in the White House today at 1:30 Pacific time.
After the call, I will give an update on what happened on my trip to Latvia.
Your Pastor,
Hutch

---

15135 NE 92ND STREET SUITE 240 - REDMOND · WA 98052 | 425.556.5905 or 1.877.BLKnWHT

Reverend "Special Envoy" Hutcherson

I had written up a post on March 12th about the good reverend's activities in Latvia and getting a mention in the UK media about support from London Mayor Ken Livingstone for Gay Pride events in Riga.  Unfortunately due to a snafu in Windows Live Writer the post ended up in the bit-bucket.  This included a bunch of background and the Russian translations I'd pieced together from various tools and sites.  Grrrr.

Thankfully there are plenty of other bloggers crawling over the steaming carcass of Reverend Hutcherson's triumph in Latvia and his visit to the New Generation Church.

One thing that I hadn't got to fact checking was the claim of a "Special Envoy" status being awarded to Hutch by the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives as "Special Envoy for Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief"

Various bloggers including SLOG have confirmed this to be incorrect by contacting the WHOFB&CI to confirm.  Hutcherson says he can prove he was granted "Special Envoy" status it and he's looking for some video footage that he believes will be treated as evidence.  Essentially turning this into a He-said, She-said situation.

Well, it's a little more interesting than that.

I just got off the phone with the nice people at the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.  My primary goal was to find the right person (FOIA Officer) to whom I should send my Freedom of Information Act request regarding all Reverend Hutcherson's past and present interactions with the WHOFB&CI. 

While on the line I mentioned the issues I'm investigating and asked them to confirm again that Reverend Ken Hutcherson has had no status granted to him as a "Special Envoy".  The staff member confirmed that Hutch has no such accreditation or status.

Then I asked if their office had ever given out any kind of special envoy status to any individual.  The response was that they have *never* given out any status or credential of this type.  When asked who would issue status like "Special Envoy" they said they were not sure, but that they thought it might be the Department of State.

Not only did they not issue Hutch "Special Envoy" status, they have never issued anyone with "Special Envoy" status.

Over at USINFO.STATE.GOV there is a list of more than 1300 real Special Envoy appointments made through the Department of State including Special Envoy's for:

• Gaza Disengagement
• Darfur
• Combating Anti-Semitism
• Tsunami Recovery
• Pakistan Earthquake
• Holocaust Issues
• Afghanistan

The people nominated as special envoys seem like very qualified and serious people, sent to deal with serious problems, and with goals that align with US policy interests.  That seems very different to Hutcherson's alleged "Special Envoy for Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief".

One of the commenters at SLOG managed to get hold of a very brief audio recording that is supposedly from from the New Generation Church.  Here's my transcription of his comments:

"We are here to make sure that the United States is not being used to push any right that subdue (sic) other right (sic) and I have the power and the commission to ask these questions."

While it is hardly a smoking gun for attempting to pass himself off as a representative of the United States government or the White House, it definitely shows that Hutcherson's goal was to use the shield of religious freedom to block progress in LGBT rights. 

Is religious freedom the only right that is used as a weapon against other groups to prevent them from getting the rights and protections they need?

Hutcherson isn't a Special Envoy, but based on the evidence he, and his traveling partner in Latvia, Scott Lively, could easily be named Religious Envoys for Oppression, Bigotry, and Anti-Gay Holocaust Revisionism.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a response from the US Embassy in Latvia to an e-mail I sent them on March 12th that says in part: 

I'm writing a piece about the activities of Reverend Ken Hutcherson in Latvia and I'd like some information on his recent meetings with U.S. Embassy staff.

• On how many occasions and on what dates has Reverend Hutcherson met with U.S. Embassy staff?
• With whom did Reverend Hutcherson speak at the embassy on his most recent trip?
• What if anything can you disclose about the purpose and content of the discussions he had at the embassy?
• Can you comment on why Reverend Hutcherson would say "...they aren't very happy right now" of the U.S. Embassy in Latvia?
• What comment does the U.S. Embassy have on the activities Reverend Hutcherson is undertaking in Latvia ?
• Can you please comment on the "American values" that Reverend Hutcherson feels the U.S. Embassy in Latvia is "not...representing well"?

I'm very much looking forward to their response.

Come right out and say it...

When reactions from the people who want to be the President of the United States to this outrageous comment by General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,"

...are as weak and characterless as this from Senator Hillary Clinton:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

 

 

...and this from Senator Barak Obama:

Take 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Take 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

...and this from Senator Sam Brownback:

Dear Mr. President:

We write in support of General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has recently received criticism for expressing his personal moral views.

During an interview on Sunday, while offering support for existing U.S. policies, General Pace discussed some of his personal moral convictions.  These statements led to criticism from various groups and the media.  Such criticism is both unfair and unfortunate.

As the highest ranking military officer in the United States Armed Forces, he is duty-bound to support the policies of the United States – support which he reiterated in a statement yesterday.  But we should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues.  In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views.  We should be concerned if they do not have strong convictions on key issues.

The moral behavior of members of the Armed Forces is of the highest importance, particularly during this time of war.  The question is whether personal moral beliefs should disqualify an individual from positions of leadership in the U.S. military?  We think not.  General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received.  In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles.  He has demonstrated great leadership during a very difficult time and he continues to do so today.  We look forward to his continued service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Hardly compelling defense of the civil rights of LGBT people.

It doesn't take much intelligence to parse out the message that many American people will get from this debacle.

1. Gays are immoral (no-one disagrees with Pace)
2. It is a-okay to insult, defame, and vilify gays (Pace, Coulter, Keillor, et. al.)
3. Saying homophobic things isn't bad like being racist
4. Homophobic speech and acts are not universally condemned 

Why don't they just give us uniforms or a logo, say a pink triangle, so that people know exactly who it's okay to hate?

Complete cowards.

A Prairie Homo-phobic Companion

It is, perhaps, in order to enquire “What the hell is going on?” Did someone declare 2007 as “Open Season” on LGBT people and I just didn’t get the memo?

Now it’s thrice married adulterer and radio personality Garrison Keillor gunning for us with his own special brand of wry, hypocritical ignorance. You can read about Keillor’s Salon.com rant at Towleroad.

For some local color, and I do mean color, read Dan Savage’s take on this (serious and therapeutic cursing included so it may be NSFW).

Blog reactions so far are overwhelmingly against Keillor so this will be interesting to watch. 

He may finally have completely lost the plot.  He's certainly losing listeners for his radio program. 

<This space is reserved in memory of the creative and obscenity laden rant I excised from this post>

Aaarrrggghhhh.

Larry Kramer is right. Again.

On the 20th Anniversary of the activist group ACT UP, Larry Kramer points out what we already know, but don't seem to care about enough to change.

Here are some excerpts from his speech yesterday at New York's Gay and Lesbian Center:

We are discriminated against at every turn. As we prepare to die the older among us will be taxed beyond belief. That prevents us leaving our estates to our lovers or to gay charities. God forbid the latter should happen, that gays with any money should endow gay organizations with all their gay riches. Do you think I am being too elitist in this concern? Well, you are using this gay and lesbian community center now. How do you think it supports itself? Taxation without representation is what led to our Revolutionary War. Well, way over two hundred years later gay people still have no equality.

Gays are equal to nothing good or acceptable in this country. It is criminal how they treat us. We get further and further from progress and equality with each passing year. George Bush will leave a legacy of hate that will take who knows how many eons to cleanse away. He has packed every court in the land with a conservative judge who serves for life. He has staffed every single government job from high to low with a conservative inhabitant who, under the laws of Civil Service, cannot be removed. So even with the most tolerant of new Presidents we will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate for as long as most of us will live. Congresspersons now call judges to pressure them, which is illegal, and if the President doesn’t like a judge’s record, he fires them, which is also illegal. The Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality in any foreseeable future, and it is from the Supreme Court that it must come. They are the law of this land that will not make us equal. If that is not hate, if what I am talking about does not represent hate, I do not know what hate is. We are crumbs to them, if even that.

[snip]

Go to Queens, go to Jamaica, go to Iran, go to Wyoming, we still aren’t free. How many places in this country, in this world, can we walk down a street holding a beloved’s hand? I went to my nephew’s wedding in Jamaica twenty years ago. They are out for blood against gay men in Jamaica now. They do it to you the minute you get off the plane. There are men with iron crowbars waiting to maim you at the airport. Does our government protest? Of course not. Who cares if a faggot dies. They are actually beheading gays in Iran. This is progress? The European Parliament which in the past had played a key role in advancing gay rights worldwide, is about to be taken over by conservative delegates that will strengthen their neo-fascist bloc, which will actually call for capital punishment for homosexuals. You don’t think that any of this can’t happen here? I do. Our country’s top soldier said so this morning. We are immoral. The Mayor of Moscow calls us dirt. Polish leaders call us scum. Ann Coulter calls us sissies. General Pace calls us immoral. Who cares if a faggot dies. A gay person murdered in Iraq or Libya or Nigeria or Jamaica or Ghana or Saudi Arabia is the same as a gay person murdered here. Why do I harp so on gay murders in foreign countries. Because gay murders in Iran have a way of becoming gay hate in Paris and London and Chicago and in the highest rank of US Army. Particularly when our own government ignores all attacks against us anywhere. Who cares of a faggot dies. It is all one world now. The disposal of gay people is an equal opportunity employer and hate is a disease that spreads real fast. I repeat: a gay kid murdered anywhere is a gay kid murdered here.

...and issues a new call to action to the LGBT community:

I also know that any organization that we start now must be an army. You have resisted this word in the past. Perhaps now that the man in charge of America’s army is calling you immoral you won’t resist it army anymore. We must field an organized army with elected leaders and a chain of command. It must be a gay army with gay leaders fighting for gay people under a gay flag, in gay battle formations against our common enemies, uncontaminated by any fear of offending or by any sense that this might not be the time to say what we really need to say. We must cease our never-ending docile cooperation with a status quo that never changes in its relationship to us. We are cutting our own throats raising money for Hillary or Obama or Kerry or, God forbid, Giuliani, or anyone until they come out in full support of all the things I am talking about, not just some tepid maybe-maybes about second-class partnership pieces of worthless paper. Immigration. Taxation without representation. Safety. Why aren’t they all supporting Hate Crimes bills that include us?

Why indeed. 

You can plug into the new ACTUP Army at their new listserve.  At this stage it looks like it's just NY centric but if Larry's call to action is heeded a chapter in Seattle may not be far behind.

If you don't agree we need an army, let me remind you what our opponents are saying about our struggle for civil rights:

“This is a war and we are out to win it.”

- Reverend Ken Hutcherson

Hat tip to Towleroad for the heads up and transcript.  Read the full speech there.

Our time will come...

Researching my last post on the comments of Jeff Kemp I noticed something interesting and hopeful on the Families Northwest web page.  Can you see it? 

 

It is the images of African American families.

From a historical perspective, there was a time when these families of African descent were not honored and supported as they deserve.  There was a time when people of African descent were treated as property and less than human in this country.  That time is thankfully long past even though there is still much work to be done in redressing the wrongs stemming from those times.

Same-sex attracted people and their families will be treated equally.  It's just a matter of time.  And when the time comes I can only hope some other group isn't left feeling the sting of injustice that others have felt before them...

Jeff Kemp: Civil Marriage Supporter?

It seems like Jeff Kemp and Families Northwest had a lot to say against Civil Marriage for Same-sex couples when the State Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

In fact, among other heinous lies and distortions, the conclusion of Families Northwest amicus brief in Andersen vs. King County said:

In general, the more personal and intimate the adult relationship, the less likely it is to be regulated by law. This is true of very highly valued relationships (best friends) even when the relation involves substantial intimacy and caretaking (an adult son and his aging mother). Why is marriage then the exception? Marriage arises in every society, including our own, out of the need for a social institution that manages the reality that sex between men and women makes babies. Marriage laws are a society's way of recognizing that the sexual union of a man and a woman is unique, and laws governing marriage are oriented toward supporting its unique benefits to society and its children. Adults are free to live as they choose, but the Legislature is constitutionally entitled to prefer marriage, defined as the union of husband and wife, because it is the only relation which furthers the State's interest in (a) creating the next generation within (b) the ideal context for children. Marriage is the only kind of sexual union that is physically capable of uniting men and woman with the children their sexual unions often produce.

It seems clear that Families Northwest's position is that marriage and all the laws governing it are about the potential or actual conception and rearing of children.

To refresh your memory, the supreme court plurality ruling said the following:

But given the rational relationship standard and that the legislature was provided with testimony that children thrive in opposite-sex marriage environments, the legislature acted within its power to limit the status of marriage.

That is, the legislature was entitled to believe that providing that only opposite-sex couples may marry will encourage procreation and child-rearing in a “traditional” nuclear family where children tend to thrive.

[edit]

We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

But if Jeff Kemp's comment in the Bloomberg article on I-957 (which, in keeping with the Supreme Court ruling in Andersen, would require married couples to have children within three years or have their marriage annulled) is to be believed, he's had a change of heart:

''To throw away the model [marriage] because in some cases people don't have kids is an insult to humanity,'' said Kemp, a former NFL quarterback and the son of 1996 Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp.

Exactly.

How much greater an insult to humanity is it, then, to limit access to marriage not just in cases where people don't have kids, but also in cases when they do?  This isn't just an insult to my humanity, or the humanity of every same-sex couple in Washington State, it is shameful and criminal injustice.

LGB and T: More alike than we think?

I spotted an interesting thread at Pam's House Blend by Dan L titled "I'm confused..." which asked some questions about how different parts of the LGBT community position and talk about their identities.  It is an interesting post but here is the nub of the question that piqued my interest:

"Here's the quote that I'm pointing out: 

I have a condition called gender identity disorder, it's a medical condition that means that how I see myself is different from my biological sex.  Some people aren't aware that gender and sex are not the same.  for most people they're very congruent, but for me they're at battle, they're at war.  My body tells me one thing, but my heart and my should tell me something else.  I knew I had this all my life, but I didn't really have a name for it until November of 2003

Now that's a fairly stark contrast between what he's saying and what the LGB community.  Actually, it would seem to me that Nemecek's statements almost feed into the notions that some of the anti-gay bigots like to play with.  And even I'm aware that there are very few similarities between LGB folks and T folks - but I think the fundies can easily whitewash the differences. 

LGB:  Being gay is not a disease and it's not a medial condition.  It's the fiber of our being. 

T:  Being trans gendered is a medical condition. 

Calling it a medical condition seems like he's apologizing for whom he is." 

That got me thinking and I made the following post in the comments thread:

Hey Dan,

As someone who is part of an LGBT Employee Resource Group that has been engaged in benefit advocacy, I'd like to offer you another perspective.

When someone frames the difference between their internal gender identity and their external gender appearance as a medical condition it isn't necessarily a capitulation to the DSM or the language of conservative voices. A medical condition is not considered a disease, but rather a medical problem that can be dealt with through a course of treatment.

Such language can have entirely practical reasons. Consider the movement for transgender benefits and, in particular, medical and surgical benefits.

It is hard to have a discussion about gaining transgender specific health benefits without getting equally specific about why these benefits are medically necessary.

There are a myriad of other issues that face the transgender community including incredible Privacy issues both during and after their transition and being "outed" as transgendered because the perceived birth gender is recorded in Social Security and other Identification systems.

When you are part of a chronically misunderstood community one of the few ways you are empowered to change your lot is through education and advocacy. The transgender community has the double burden of educating not just the larger community, but also the LGB community who are nominally their allies.

That's what I see in the quotes you referenced. I see a willingness to be vulnerable, to educate, and advocate for understanding and fair treatment against huge odds.

I don't begrudge transgender people the right to frame the discussion in such a way that they can win, and I don't see any apology or shame in the position they put forward.

I do think there is a fundamental flaw in your logic in comparing the positions of the LGB (“It’s the fiber of our being”) and Transgender (“it’s a medical condition”) communities. Consider these gross but helpful generalizations:

• Society tells same-sex attracted (LGBT) people to ignore or suppress the internal truth about who they are attracted to. To be happy, same-sex attracted people need to be free to love whom they love without society’s opprobrium and to decide to do so. There is no physical barrier that prevents them from doing so.
• Society tells transgendered people to ignore or suppress the internal truth of their own gender identity. To be happy, transgender people need their external appearance to match their internal truth. There is a very significant physical barrier that prevents them from doing so.

What makes the situation different for transgender people is that the dissonance between the internal truth and external perception isn’t fixed by society saying “Oh, I get it, you’re right, go to it!” as it is with LGB folks. There really is a “medical condition” standing between them and happiness.

We need to be mindful of the two different philosophical approaches that people in society can take in each case. There is “Change the Internal Truth to match the External Perception” which is what ex-gay organizations advocate so disastrously for the LGB community, or “Change the External Perception to match the Internal Truth” which LGB people do by continuing the coming out process, and which Transgender people do by considering or continuing the transition process.

The positions of the LGB and T communities don't seem different at all to me. They are both about the primacy of internal truth and changing the external perception.

It seems like we are getting distracted by the tactics and language people use to get what they need to survive and thrive, and forgetting the internal truth that motivates them to do it.

Cheers,

~GC

P.s. I'm no expert in transgender issues, nor do I play one on television. I'm just a gay man trying to correct my own ignorance about a community that seems to get the short end of the stick every damn time. I'm going to post my thoughts in a post on my own blog (http://www.thegaycurmudgeon.com) and I'm open to private correction, opinion and education there.

I'm exploring my own thinking here and there is a lot I don't know, a lot that I need to understand.  Thoughts?  Comments?

Anglican Church advocates oppression of Gays and Lesbians in Nigeria

Sex between consenting adults of the same sex is already illegal in Nigeria.  But apparently that just isn't enough for the administration of Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo (hat tip to AmericaBlog). 

They have proposed a bill that is nominally anti-gay marriage legislation, but that in reality has vague language affecting a broad set of rights for same-sex attracted Nigerians and visitors. 

From the NYT: 

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are already illegal in Nigeria under a penal code that dates to the colonial period. This new legislation would impose five-year sentences on same-sex couples who have wedding ceremonies — as well as on those who perform such services and on all who attend. The bill’s vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a “same sex amorous relationship” — which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex — would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time.

The bill also criminalizes all political organizing on behalf of gay rights. And in a country with a dauntingly high rate of H.I.V. and AIDS, the ban on holding any meetings related to gay rights could make it impossible for medical workers to counsel homosexuals on safe sex practices.

Its a relief to know that the religious leaders can be trusted to present a united front opposing this kind of oppression and violation of human rights. 

That relief is sadly misplaced.  

The NYT article reveals that the legislation has the "full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria’s powerful Anglican church."

The head of the Anglican Church in Nigeria is Archbishop Peter Akinola, a divisive figure in the Anglican Communion, who has been quoted as saying that the acceptance of gay relationships is a "satanic attack."

I can't find anything from Pope Benedict XVI condemning this most un-Christian action.  Nor can I find any condemnation from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Religions lose their moral authority when they look away from this kind of cruelty and injustice.   I contend that Archbishop Akinola, in advocating for this legislation. has lost much, much more. 

Certainly his humanity and very likely his soul.

Punishing the Law-abiding

This captures my frustration acutely.  (Hat tip to AnonymousLefty)

Here's how the somewhat Pythonesque conversation between myself and the Motion Picture Association of American would go: 

MPAA: You purchased a legal DVD?

GC: Yes.

MPAA: DON'T STEAL MOVIES!

GC: Err, well, actually, I didn't steal it, I bought it at...

MPAA: PIRACY IS THEFT!

GC: Actually, I already knew that.

MPAA: PEOPLE WHO MAKE MOVIES ARE STARVING!

GC:  That's hard to believe. Don't many of them make more than I do?

MPAA: THE LITTLE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MOVIES ARE STARVING!

GC:  Oh, so do all the recovered profits from piracy go to them?

MPAA:  ~!~

GC:  Hello?  Are you still there?

MPAA: Shut your thieving gob!

GC: But what about...

MPAA: SILENCE! Now, watch these ten trailers for other movies we're sure your going to steal next.

In business, you normally pay very close attention when a different business model is getting better distribution and penetration than yours. And in this specific case I don't think the issue is just price, either.

If you make it easy for me to buy and watch movies, I'll do it more often. 

Honest.

Just. Not. Funny.

You may recall that Hutch was recently awarded a "Schrammie" by KOMO's Ken Schram for lodging the recently challenged initiative (I-963) to roll back the inclusion of sexual orientation (HB 2661) from Washington's anti discrimination law.   Here's how Ken introduced the award for the Reverend:

It takes a special kind of person to openly advocate for discrimination.
In this instance, it takes a man of stilted thinking; a man of narrow-minded focus, not to mention bigoted determination.

Indeed, in this case it takes...a man of God.

So would Rev. Ken Hutcherson please, step away from the pulpit and come on down.

Well, now those web savvy wags at Antioch Bible Church have posted a video on YouTube of Hutch talking with his "Schrammie" award:

If there is anything I find more annoying than a bigoted, hypocritical, law-breaking, ego-maniacal, lying sack of chook pooh, it's a bigoted, hypocritical, law-breaking, ego-maniacal, lying sack of chook-pooh who isn't funny.

This video is ripe for a competition to remake it with a new and *funny* voice track. 

Any entries to be posted on YouTube, linked into the comments on this post, and judged by me after a few glasses of red wine.

Extra credit for working in that four-masted vessel in the background.

Fitzmas comes at last! Scooter Libby found guilty on four counts

Finally, a verdict in the Libby obstruction and perjury case.   Here's the sequence of events from the LA Times.

Congratulations to Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his team for getting convictions on four out of the five counts against Libby.

Unfortunately, we still haven't been able to get to the heart of the matter.  Who orchestrated the leaking of a CIA agent's name? 

Now where can I get odds on Scooter getting a Presidential Pardon?

The Unbearable Oratory of Senator Val Stevens

I had reason today to transcribe part of the Washington State Senate debate on the Domestic Partnership Bill (SSB 5336).  The comments of Senator Val Stevens (R) of the 39th Legislative District have to be seen and heard to be believed. 

There is no official transcript from the Senate records so this is my transcription from watching and listening to the video.  I have tried to render the punctuation, phrasing, and sentence structure as accurately as possible but the Senator has a somewhat unique and meandering oratorical style.  

The speaker prior to Senator Stevens was Senator Ed Murray who spoke eloquently on the hurts that same sex couples face everyday which this bill would address.  We'll pick up the action as the President of the Senate, recognizes Senator Stevens.

Senator Val Stevens: Thank you, Mr. President

With all due respect to the previous speaker, I do very much resent how the religion depicted in the manner that is was being depicted. Religion is many things. Some people worship money. Some people worship what they do in their bedrooms. Some people even worship witchcraft.

My religion is my belief system, it is not - it is not - any of those. And to characterize my beliefs as a religion, my Christianity is not my religion. It is what I believe. It is the way I live. It is the way I attempt to be a good citizen.

I’ve handed out to you a piece of paper here that talks about what the sponsors believe in this bill.

The very first one says, “The goal is marriage equality. Domestic Partners are an incremental step to reach that goal.”

Now, to me that says that this is about marriage, this is about getting there. We have watched this incremental movement as it has slowly eroded the sanctity of marriage. And I know we are not supposed to call it marriage. But as a previous speaker did speak, it is about really about that that.

And they say that in their own words, those who support this legislation.

This bill is not about equal rights, it's about changing society in ways that will ultimately harm it. Thriving civilizations take care to guard this sacred institution of marriage and the innocence of children. Our acquiescence to the Gay rights, as it is depicted, homosexual rights, liberation is political appeasement. We are giving away the building blocks of a lasting society one bill at a time.

Last year, we passed what is called gay rights bill for homosexuals prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. We tried to amend it. We tried to add the amendment that would exempt such societal destroying practices such as beasteology (sic), which is sexual intercourse with animals, necrophilia, which is sexual intercourse with the dead, incest, which is sexual intercourse between a parent and a child, and...”

President: Senator Murray, for what purpose do you rise?

Senator Murray: Mr. President, point of order.

President: Please state your point of order.

Senator Murray: The citizens of this state should not be described with those derogatory terms. She is not speaking to the bill.

President: Senator Stevens you are drifting a little away from the bill at present.  I would appreciate it if you would bring your remarks relative to the bill.

Senator Stevens: I appreciate that Mr. President, and in fact I am speaking to this bill. I am speaking to what is said right here, that this is a movement in the direction of going for gay marriage. Last year was one of that movement, and that was the special rights that were offered that passed. And I am describing the amendment that we attempted to put on that bill that was objected to by the folks who are pressuring us to pass this piece of legislation.

So in fact, Mr President, I am right in the same realm of this bill. The bill proponents found that the amendment and the protections should not be adopted. They were not willing to include these types of protections for children, etcetera.

President: Senator Eide for what purpose do you rise?

Senator Eide: A point of order, Mr. President.

President: Please state your point of order.

Senator Eide: We need to discuss the bill. This is going way off to another direction. Please Mr. President, we need to continue to discuss the bill.

President: The President believes that there is some discretion for a person to give their opinion on which direction a bill is going. However, Senator Stevens, it is important by your own rules that you discuss specifically the bill before you.

Senator Stevens: Thank you Mr. President. And I will just say that I would urge you to oppose this bill for the reasons that I have just given, the many reasons that I have stated here on this floor. This is an attempt to erode the sanctity of marriage as is said in their own words, and I would urge you to oppose this legislation based on that. Thank you, Mr. President.

I am sure that same-sex families and couples everywhere are offended by Senator Stevens implication that the "sanctity of marriage" and the "innocence of children" would be harmed by "gay marriage" despite the fact that SSB 5336 was about Domestic Partnerships and that many same-sex couples have their own children. 

I'm equally sure that they are scandalized by the thinly veiled implication that our "thriving civilization" will go to hell in a hand-basket if same-sex couples are allowed to form domestic partnerships.

I'm sure they are stunned and saddened, but not surprised, to see non-sequitur references designed to link domestic partnership to "beastiology" (no, it isn't a real word but  Reverend Hutcherson has used it also), "necrophilia", and "incest".  I'm amazed to see that "polygamy" and the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse  didn't get a mention.

But what really offends me is that Senator Stevens seems completely incapable of forming a cogent argument or a coherent sentence. 

Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 2007

It looks like there was plenty of the political in the parade entries:

And then there was the Kylie 2007 Float with 250 Kylie Impersonators (participants?):

And despite rumors that Kylie didn't approve, she sent best wishes to the Kylie 2007 team.  Here is the only video footage I've found of them so far starting at about 4:05 into the clip.  Looks like just one Kylie impersonator to me:

The most important news to me is that the Surf Life Saving Association took part in Mardi Gras for the first time.  I thought there were no photos of the entry but managed to find the official blog of the entry here.

While the Mardi Gras parade is all about having fun and deciding which bit looks juiciest to you...

...Surf Life Saving is an Australian cultural icon and does vital work.  Take a look at this:

More photos and video of Mardi Gras as I find them. 

Here are some photos at GenerationQ.

Ann Coulter: The Canary in the Coal mine

No one is surprised that Ms. Coulter continues to shock and offend by calling people names.  

This time it's John Edwards who gets off-handedly referred to as a "faggot". 

Ms. Coulter is well on the way to becoming a fitting punch-line to the joke that is her public life.  As people wake up to how hateful, intellectually lazy, and unethical she is she'll increasingly become a symbol of how low conservatives will stoop.

When conservatives begin to reject her more openly she will be seen as the canary in the political coal mine and a warning the Republican party that helped create her.

Its amusing to me that Ms. Coulter always seems to be wearing the same black cocktail dress.  She has that permanent "walk of shame" look that outwardly moral but inwardly corrupt conservatives lust after in the catacombs of their hearts.

Washington Republicans for Secret Advocacy

It is amazing what you can find when you spend time reading bills before committees in the legislature. 

This session there were two bills before the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee that caught my interest regarding the initiative and referendum petition process. 

Each of these bills seeks to "Encourage[s] initiatives and referendums by extending privacy protections to signatories."  Here are the bills in question:

• HB 2277 - Sponsored by representatives Bruce Chandler (R), Mike Armstrong (R), and Joel Kretz (R) from the 15th, 12th, and 7th Legislative Districts respectively.
• HB 2255 - Sponsored by Representatives Bruce Chandler (R) and Joel Kretz (R) from the 15th and 7th Legislative Districts respectively.

What is interesting about these bills is that they propose removing initiative and referendum petitions from the public record with the following language (lines 10-15 of HB 2277):

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 29A.72 RCW to read as follows:
Initiative and referendum petitions and the names and addresses of citizens contained on them that are submitted to the secretary of state are not public records under chapter 42.56 RCW and shall not be made public beyond the observers as specified in RCW 29A.72.230.

This is very curious move on the part of these Republican representatives and I have a few questions for them:

• What are the voter participation and privacy problems that these bills are the supposed remedy?
• What is the data that supports the existence of these voter participation and privacy problems?
• Do we think that the initiative and referendum process isn't "vibrant" today and that obfuscating the names and addresses of signatories is the most important action we can take to make it so?

The bills also talk about the privacy voters can expect on their ballot which is already protected (lines 12-18 of HB 2255)

Washington's laws and Constitution ensure that a voter's decision on who they vote for or against and what measures he or she votes for or against is not publicly revealed. Such a violation of privacy may subject voters to potential harassment, retaliation, and intimidation.

Similar chilling of constitutional rights will be avoided by extending privacy protection to those engaged in the right to peacefully petition their government by initiative and referendum.

When a voter signs an Initiative or Referendum petition they are undertaking an act of public advocacy and have no reasonable expectation of privacy.   If that same Initiative or Referendum gets on the ballot, the voters decision is protected by the secret ballot.  However, the fact that they have voted and their party affiliation is and always has been a matter of public record, a fact that very few Washingtonians seem to know. 

Why is there no bill to remove party affiliation and voting history from the public record as well?

If voters, or these representatives, really are confused about the difference between an act of public advocacy and a vote by secret ballot, then the problem we have is that they don't understand how the political process works. 

It is an issue of Education and not one of Privacy.  The correct response is to educate people and correct the public perception, not to alter the law to match the public perception.

Let's face it, Initiatives and Referendums are tools that reinforce the power of majorities and, given equal funding and execution, the majority always wins. 

If bills like this were to pass the legislature it would allow a majority of Washington voters to advocate against minorities in secret and with no transparency to prevent abuse of the initiative and referendum process.  As history attests, it has always been easier for good people to permit evil in their name when they can do so in secret.

This is a far more alarming and real "chilling of constitutional rights" than the ones that these bills would allegedly address.

These bills failed to get out of committee prior to the cutoff, but we all need to keep a weather eye out for them in the future. 

Homosexual vilification "lawful" in Australia

I'd really like someone to explain to me how something can be both vilification and protected under freedom of expression at the same time.

Back in 2004, radio "personality" John Laws called Queer Eye For the Straight Guy's Carson Kressley a "pillow biter" and "pompous little pansy prig" on his radio show. 

The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal has just ruled on a complaint brought by Gary Burns, a gay rights activist, who objected to the language used by Laws.  See what you make of it.  From The Age:

The ADT panel of acting judge Michael Chesterman and non-judicial members Laura Mooney and Cleonie Quayle ruled Laws was protected by free speech provisions under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

"We rule unanimously that the statements that Mr Laws made on the relevant broadcast constituted homosexual vilification, because they incited severe ridicule of homosexual men on the ground of their homosexuality," the judgment read.

"By majority, we rule further, however, that his publication of these statements on the radio fell within an exception established by the (Anti-Discrimination) Act that is designed, within appropriate limits, to preserve freedom of expression.

"Our majority decision is accordingly that the publication was lawful."

It seems not everyone on the tribunal was convinced that Laws met the standard required to trigger protection under provisions for "freedom of expression":

Dissenting panel member Ms Mooney, however, said she thought Laws had failed to establish a reasonable defence to the charge of vilification.

"For the reasons of its gratuitously insulting tone and the degree of harm that it may cause, I have decided that the vilifying comments made by the respondent in his broadcast were sufficiently disproportionate to his purposes in making it," she said.

"Although he acted in good faith, he cannot be said to have acted reasonably. Accordingly, I find that he has failed to establish the defence contained in the homosexual vilification provisions of the act."

It looks like John Laws gets away with doing the wrong thing in the right way.  Still, it's not like Laws has a history of vilifying gay men on the air that should be taken into account, is it?

Domestic Partnership Bill passes Washington Senate

Good news today that the Washington State Senate passed SB 5336 which, if passed by the House of Representatives , would extend a limited set of rights to registered domestic partnerships in Washington State. 

Many thanks to Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, Fairley, Prentice, Regala, Oemig, Tom, Kline, Hobbs, Pridemore, Keiser, Berkey, Franklin, Brown, Weinstein, Rockefeller, Poulsen, Fraser, Jacobsen, Spanel, and McAuliffe who sponsored this bill.

Here is the detailed list from the Bill Summary:

Extension of rights to domestic partners: Certain powers and rights granted to spouses are granted to domestic partners as follows:

• health care facility visitation rights;
• ability to grant informed consent for health care for a patient who is not competent;
• authority of health care providers to disclose information about a patient without the patient's authorization to the patient's state registered domestic partner;
• automatic revocation of the designation of a domestic partner as the beneficiary for nonprobate assets upon termination of the partnership;
• automatic revocation of power of attorney granted to domestic partner upon
  termination of the partnership;
• title and rights to cemetery plots and rights of interment;
• ability to authorize autopsies and request copies of autopsy reports and records;
• right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person;
• ability to consent to removal of human remains from a cemetery plot;
• ability to make anatomical gifts;
• inheritance rights when the domestic partner dies without a will; and
• administration of an estate if the domestic partner died without a will or if the representative named in the will declined or was unable to serve.

If the House passes the bill as expected, Governor Christine Gregoire has said that she will sign the bill.  The bill would take effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session on April 22nd.